Lawyerly

GR No. 166357

2015-01-14

BERSAMIN, J.

In time, in Republic v. Court of Appeals,[8] the Court set some guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, as follows: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.

GR No. 159594

2012-11-12

REPUBLIC v. CA

BERSAMIN, J.

The OSG argues that the findings and conclusions of the RTC and the CA did not conform to the guidelines laid down by the Court in Republic v. Court of Appeals, (Molina);[15] and that Catalina's refusal to do household chores, and her failure to take care of her husband and their adopted daughter were not "defects" of a psychological nature warranting the declaration of nullity of their marriage, but mere indications of her difficulty, refusal or neglect to perform her marital obligations.

GR No. 157649

2012-11-12

ARABELLE J. MENDOZA v. REPUBLIC

BERSAMIN, J.

The RTC found that all the characteristics of psychological incapacity, i.e., gravity, antecedence and incurability, as set forth in Republic v. Court of Appeals (Molina),[8] were attendant, establishing Dominic's psychological incapacity, viz: Gravity from the evidence adduced it can be said that respondent cannot carry out the normal and ordinary duties of marriage and family shouldered by any average couple existing under ordinary circumstances of life and work. Respondent is totally incapable of observing mutual love, respect and fidelity as well as to provide support to his wife and child. Ever since the start of the marriage respondent had left all the household concerns and the care of their child to petitioner while he studied and indulged in night outs with friends. This continued even when he finished his studies and landed a job. He concealed his salary from the petitioner and worse, had the gall to engage in sexual infidelity. Likewise worthy of serious consideration is respondent's propensity to borrow money, his deceitfulness and habitual and continuous evasion of his obligations which (sic) more often than not had led to the filing of criminal cases against him.

GR No. 178741

2011-01-17

ROSALINO L. MARABLE v. MYRNA F. MARABLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[14] the Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36. The Court held,

GR No. 173138

2010-12-01

NOEL B. BACCAY v. MARIBEL C. BACCAY

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

On September 11, 2000 or after less than two years of marriage, Noel filed a petition[7] for declaration of nullity of marriage with the RTC of Manila. Despite summons, Maribel did not participate in the proceedings. The trial proceeded after the public prosecutor manifested that no collusion existed between the parties. Despite a directive from the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also did not submit a certification manifesting its agreement or opposition to the case.[8]

GR No. 185286

2010-08-18

MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES v. RAMON REYES

NACHURA, J.

Moreover, Dr. Dayan, during her testimony, categorically declared that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.[22] As aptly stated by Justice Romero in her separate opinion in the ubiquitously cited case of Republic v. Court of Appeals & Molina:[23]

GR No. 166579

2010-02-18

JORDAN CHAN PAZ v. JEANICE PAVON PAZ

CARPIO, J.

What the law requires to render a marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity is downright incapacity, not refusal or neglect or difficulty, much less ill will.[27] The mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" does not constitute psychological incapacity.[28]

GR No. 176464

2010-02-04

EDWARD N. LIM v. MA. CHERYL STA. CRUZ-LIM

NACHURA, J.

Given the foregoing stringent requisites and without going into the non-exclusive list found in Republic v. Court of Appeals,[10] petitioner, as the party alleging his own psychological incapacity and that of his spouse, had the special albatross to prove that he and his wife were suffering from "the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage."[11]

GR No. 166738

2009-08-14

ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA v. EDWARD RUMBAUA

BRION, J.

the OSG certification requirement under Republic v. Molina[22] (the Molina case) cannot be dispensed with because A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which relaxed the requirement, took effect only on March 15, 2003;

GR No. 150677

2009-06-05

RENATO REYES SO v. LORNA VALERA

BRION, J.

More definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines were handed down by this Court in Republic v. Court of Appeals[40] (the Molina case) as follows:(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.

GR No. 180668

2009-05-26

MARIETA C. AZCUETA v. REPUBLIC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Thus, the Court laid down in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina[8] stringent guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, to wit:(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.

GR No. 159220

2008-09-22

MA. DARLENE DIMAYUGA-LAURENA

CARPIO, J.

In Republic v. Court of Appeals[14] (Molina case), the Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code as follows: 1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation. It decrees marriage as legally inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.

GR NO. 162049

2007-04-13

NARCISO S. NAVARRO v. CYNTHIA CECILIO-NAVARRO

QUISUMBING, J.

We likewise have repeatedly reminded that the intention of the law is to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.[6] In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[7] the Court gave the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 which are as follows:(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity...

GR No. 141917

2007-02-07

BERNARDINO S. ZAMORA v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

Also, in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,[[4]] it was held that "mere showing of 'irreconcilable differences' and 'conflicting personalities' in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness."

GR NO. 152577

2005-09-21

REPUBLIC v. CRASUS L. IYOY

More definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines were handed down by this Court in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,[22] which, although quite lengthy, by its significance, deserves to be reproduced below (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.

GR No. 158896

2004-10-27

JUANITA CARATING-SIAYNGCO v. MANUEL SIAYNGCO

CARPIO, J.

It was in Santos v. Court of Appeals[42] where we declared that "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. It should refer, rather, to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.[43] In Republic v. Court of Appeals[44] we expounded:(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state. The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.

GR No. 130087

2003-09-24

DIANA M. BARCELONA v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Petitioner Diana relies mainly[11] on the rulings in Santos v. Court of Appeals[12] as well as in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina.[13] Santos gave life to the phrase "psychological incapacity," a novel provision in the Family Code, by defining the term in this wise:xxx "psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. xxx.

	GR No. 166357 2015-01-14	VALERIO E. KALAW v. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ BERSAMIN, J.
In time, in Republic v. Court of Appeals,[8] the Court set some guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, as follows: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
	GR No. 159594 2012-11-12	REPUBLIC v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The OSG argues that the findings and conclusions of the RTC and the CA did not conform to the guidelines laid down by the Court in Republic v. Court of Appeals, (Molina);[15] and that Catalina's refusal to do household chores, and her failure to take care of her husband and their adopted daughter were not "defects" of a psychological nature warranting the declaration of nullity of their marriage, but mere indications of her difficulty, refusal or neglect to perform her marital obligations.
	GR No. 157649 2012-11-12	ARABELLE J. MENDOZA v. REPUBLIC BERSAMIN, J.
The RTC found that all the characteristics of psychological incapacity, i.e., gravity, antecedence and incurability, as set forth in Republic v. Court of Appeals (Molina),[8] were attendant, establishing Dominic's psychological incapacity, viz: Gravity from the evidence adduced it can be said that respondent cannot carry out the normal and ordinary duties of marriage and family shouldered by any average couple existing under ordinary circumstances of life and work. Respondent is totally incapable of observing mutual love, respect and fidelity as well as to provide support to his wife and child. Ever since the start of the marriage respondent had left all the household concerns and the care of their child to petitioner while he studied and indulged in night outs with friends. This continued even when he finished his studies and landed a job. He concealed his salary from the petitioner and worse, had the gall to engage in sexual infidelity. Likewise worthy of serious consideration is respondent's propensity to borrow money, his deceitfulness and habitual and continuous evasion of his obligations which (sic) more often than not had led to the filing of criminal cases against him.
	GR No. 178741 2011-01-17	ROSALINO L. MARABLE v. MYRNA F. MARABLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[14] the Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36. The Court held,
	GR No. 173138 2010-12-01	NOEL B. BACCAY v. MARIBEL C. BACCAY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On September 11, 2000 or after less than two years of marriage, Noel filed a petition[7] for declaration of nullity of marriage with the RTC of Manila. Despite summons, Maribel did not participate in the proceedings. The trial proceeded after the public prosecutor manifested that no collusion existed between the parties. Despite a directive from the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also did not submit a certification manifesting its agreement or opposition to the case.[8]
	GR No. 185286 2010-08-18	MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES v. RAMON REYES NACHURA, J.
Moreover, Dr. Dayan, during her testimony, categorically declared that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.[22] As aptly stated by Justice Romero in her separate opinion in the ubiquitously cited case of Republic v. Court of Appeals & Molina:[23]
	GR No. 166579 2010-02-18	JORDAN CHAN PAZ v. JEANICE PAVON PAZ CARPIO, J.
What the law requires to render a marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity is downright incapacity, not refusal or neglect or difficulty, much less ill will.[27] The mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" does not constitute psychological incapacity.[28]
	GR No. 176464 2010-02-04	EDWARD N. LIM v. MA. CHERYL STA. CRUZ-LIM NACHURA, J.
Given the foregoing stringent requisites and without going into the non-exclusive list found in Republic v. Court of Appeals,[10] petitioner, as the party alleging his own psychological incapacity and that of his spouse, had the special albatross to prove that he and his wife were suffering from "the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage."[11]
	GR No. 166738 2009-08-14	ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA v. EDWARD RUMBAUA BRION, J.
the OSG certification requirement under Republic v. Molina[22] (the Molina case) cannot be dispensed with because A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which relaxed the requirement, took effect only on March 15, 2003;
	GR No. 150677 2009-06-05	RENATO REYES SO v. LORNA VALERA BRION, J.
More definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines were handed down by this Court in Republic v. Court of Appeals[40] (the Molina case) as follows:(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
	GR No. 180668 2009-05-26	MARIETA C. AZCUETA v. REPUBLIC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Thus, the Court laid down in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina[8] stringent guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, to wit:(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
	GR No. 159220 2008-09-22	MA. DARLENE DIMAYUGA-LAURENA CARPIO, J.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals[14] (Molina case), the Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code as follows: 1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation. It decrees marriage as legally inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
	GR NO. 162049 2007-04-13	NARCISO S. NAVARRO v. CYNTHIA CECILIO-NAVARRO QUISUMBING, J.
We likewise have repeatedly reminded that the intention of the law is to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.[6] In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[7] the Court gave the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 which are as follows:(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity...
	GR No. 141917 2007-02-07	BERNARDINO S. ZAMORA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
Also, in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,[[4]] it was held that "mere showing of 'irreconcilable differences' and 'conflicting personalities' in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness."
	GR NO. 152577 2005-09-21	REPUBLIC v. CRASUS L. IYOY
More definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines were handed down by this Court in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,[22] which, although quite lengthy, by its significance, deserves to be reproduced below (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
	GR No. 158896 2004-10-27	JUANITA CARATING-SIAYNGCO v. MANUEL SIAYNGCO CARPIO, J.
It was in Santos v. Court of Appeals[42] where we declared that "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. It should refer, rather, to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.[43] In Republic v. Court of Appeals[44] we expounded:(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state. The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
	GR No. 130087 2003-09-24	DIANA M. BARCELONA v. CA CARPIO, J.
Petitioner Diana relies mainly[11] on the rulings in Santos v. Court of Appeals[12] as well as in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina.[13] Santos gave life to the phrase "psychological incapacity," a novel provision in the Family Code, by defining the term in this wise:xxx "psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. xxx.

REPUBLIC v. RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA